SOE's developers have reduced the benefits of soloing to the point where there really needs to be a re-evaluation of all the classes which were designed with soloing capability as part of their relative balance, to make sure each can make a worthwhile <strong><em>and</em></strong> <strong>desirable</strong> contribution to prospective groups.

I believe SOE has determined that druids *can* make a worthwhile contribution. But I also believe they're discovering, perhaps for the first time, that possessing worthwhile grouping attributes does not itself make a class desirable to prospective groups.

By discouraging and penalizing soloing, grouping desirability has been made a larger factor in overall class balance than it has ever been.

Weoden made a valid point in another thread. One aspect of "grouping balance" is the ability of a class to stack well in a variety of regular (non-raid) grouping situations. I think most would agree that at least in the higher level game and most definitely in PoP zones, a "slower" is considered an essential component in a typical group.

When the group has an enchanter, you can add any one of the three priest classes and your healing/slowing roles are pretty well set. The real area of concern is how well priests themselves stack in a group setting.

CLR+SHM is an extremely desirable combination for grouping and DRU+SHM is quite desirable as well; both of these combinations have adequate healing, slowing, and buffing. A group with CLR+DRU, however, will need to reserve an additional slot for a slower/haster, so this is usually <span style="text-decoration:underline">not</span> a desirable pairing.

The only way to fix this particular grouping imbalance is give clerics and/or druids a method of compensating when a slower is not present. I believe the best fix would actually be <span style="text-decoration:underline">two-fold</span>:

*I would prefer to add a debuff component to our DS line rather than tweaking our ATK debuff spells because my goal would be to further reduce the mob's damage output when used in conjuction with Ro/E'ci in their current forms, but without adding more aggro.

**Giving the cleric's mark spells a higher damage amount would serve the purpose of killing mobs a bit more quickly without a damage increase to druid DS (with dots and nukes, our damage output is fine).

In groups with only one (cleric OR druid), each of the above improvements would lessen their reliance upon slows but would not trivialize the benefit of having a slower if one is available. It would also slightly lessen the reliance of shaman in some raiding scenarios, yet allow priests to see at least a marginal benefit when all three are present.

~Firemynd

Salacious Corpse 01

06-18-2003, 07:23 AM

Wayyy back when, when they handed us Nature's Touch... I had always thought that what would help us more than better heals, is a dmg shield that scaled with a % of the dmg. Mages especially could benefit from this.

The effect of a 70% slow is massive when the mobs hit for 800+ dmg or 200 dmg or even 50 dmg.

The effect of a 50 point dmg shield when the mob hits from 50 is awesome, when 200-ish is nice, when 800-ish it is negligible. Thorns and marks do the same amount whether the mob hits for 200dmg, or hits for 800. Today, everything has to be slowed, this wasn't always the case, at one time dmg shields WERE a good alternative to mobs being slowed. Now they are nothing more than an extra source of minimal dps.

A little of topic, but I always thought necros should have had Diablo type spells, return dmg (iron maiden), or amplify dmg (noticeable lowering of ac) or even curses that cause NPC's to miss 1 / 3 of the time. Rather than outright slowing, a curse causing swings to miss frequently would be a nice alternative.

I must agree that as a whole grouping reserves two spots automatically, three if the mobs summons. Slower, healer, tank (if summoning mob)

Give necros some group friendly curses that work regarldess of undead or not.

Heh, I know I didn't do that *quite* right but goal was to have each group use one class twice then other slots be done so that all other classes were used 4 times in the list.

Now, on to the general idea of group balance-- I'll introduce another idea-- create more areas conducive to kite groups: areas with a place where mobs wander that you pull from, to an expansive area without many mobs. I'm sure you've seen the type of camp before.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>*I would prefer to add a debuff component to our DS line rather than tweaking our ATK debuff spells because my goal would be to further reduce the mob's damage output when used in conjuction with Ro/E'ci in their current forms, but without adding more aggro.[/quote]

I heartily agree that aggro management in these types of situations is a huge limiting factor for druids. I can't quite agree with your proposed method of dealing with this, however. Druid DS does not stack with Magician DS line. Theirs overwrites ours as you well know. This would not stack well in groups. Also, I am trying to imagine what sort of additional debuff would make up for lack of a slower without also overpowering us for solo play or raiding.

Give me a scenario so I can try to wrap my brain around your idea, please.

Demasia

06-18-2003, 08:04 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>SOE's developers have reduced the benefits of soloing to the point where there really needs to be a re-evaluation of all the classes which were designed with soloing capability as part of their relative balance, to make sure each can make a worthwhile and desirable contribution to prospective groups.[/quote]

I completely agree.

But I believe the solution exists within the primary abilities of priests and their hybrids. Our primary priest abilities relate to matters of life and death and are expressed in the game by heals, rezzes, hit point buffs, and succors. I view the shaman's slow as a secondary ability much like our snare or a cleric's stuns; that it has become a great asset to the shamans doesn't mean that all priests should gain another way to mitigate damage beyond the tools already possessed by each.

Belkram Marwolf

06-18-2003, 08:30 AM

Going to ignore the COMPLETE inability of a cleric to solo 60 to 65 in order to address priest group desireability? Or are you going to address that as part of the ideas here?

Because this smacks of addressing how well you heal without addressing how well you nuke, dot, snare or any of a whole host of things. This is endemic of the posting strategy here, post what you cannot do in order to recieve upgrades or new abilities while ignoring what you do have. Opposite side of the fence, addressing DPS output while ignoring healing capabilities.

A 30 percent decrease in soloing in PoP is STILL better than group exp rates if you are using charm to accomplish it. Dont know if that is being widely recognized as fact here or not. Because it doesnt look like it.

Belkram

Bombudil

06-18-2003, 08:32 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1. Add a debuffing effect to the druid's damage shield line.* 2. Increase the damage numbers of the cleric's "mark" line.** *I would prefer to add a debuff component to our DS line rather than tweaking our ATK debuff spells because my goal would be to further reduce the mob's damage output when used in conjuction with Ro/E'ci in their current forms, but without adding more aggro. **Giving the cleric's mark spells a higher damage amount would serve the purpose of killing mobs a bit more quickly without a damage increase to druid DS (with dots and nukes, our damage output is fine). In groups with only one (cleric OR druid), each of the above improvements would lessen their reliance upon slows but would not trivialize the benefit of having a slower if one is available. It would also slightly lessen the reliance of shaman in some raiding scenarios, yet allow priests to see at least a marginal benefit when all three are present.[/quote]

Cleric here, checking in.

Brilliant idea - both changes.

With either/or cleric/druid, without a shaman:
The changes would decrease the amount of healing required (the same as slow).

The best part however is if a shaman is present:
Neither change would help much. A slowed mob doesnt hit much, and damage shields are not much use.

Best idea I have heard in a long while.

Ambul Ants

06-18-2003, 08:37 AM

I think Firemynd has a great point.

There is little penalty as long as one of your preists are a shamen. You need a slower, and a healer, two healers does not make up for no slow.

Here is a crazy idea, and one that may not be codeable.

Druid slow-8% Cleric slow-8% get them both to land you get 64% slow. You now have a potentially slowed mob, and you undo the disinsentive of having both a druid and a cleric in a group. These spells would be of very little use on there own. And the risk of only having one land would force increased healing.

Personally, as a Cleric, I dont care what the group is made up of as long as there is a slower. I share the rant I have read here no slower no group, this would help.

Madai

06-18-2003, 08:53 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Going to ignore the COMPLETE inability of a cleric to solo 60 to 65[/quote]

Hammer pet+ judgement will eventually bring a pop mob down. sure, the cleric will be OOM, but if I burned a pop mob to the ground I'd prolly be oom too.

So, the "complete inability" is a false statement. Sure, now more than ever it's ineffiecient, but I still see clerics occaisionally and successfully solo.

Panamah

06-18-2003, 09:03 AM

I'd suggest starting a new thread if clerics and druids want to discuss how well clerics solo. This is too good of an idea to derail into what will most likely be a discussion fraught with emotion.

Great idea Firemynd.

As far as stepping on Mages toes.... yes, it does. But I would propose Mages having the 2nd best DS in the game, maybe it would even have the same effect of the Druid DS, maybe not. Mages already have the best pets and the 2nd best nukes, some of the handiest utilities (like CoH and summoning pet equipment).

I don't know much about Mages but judging from the fact I rarely have mage damage shields on me even when I group/raid with a Mage, I'm guessing it isn't something that they consider a corner post of their class.

Then again, I usually click off damage shields because I R rogue and I don't get hit and it takes up a buff slot.

Kaledan

06-18-2003, 09:09 AM

How about a cleric-only res (i.e. castable only on clerics)? It sucks when you are down in a dungeon and the cleric dies and noone else can res. This would make druid + cleric better balanced with shaman + cleric, cleric + cleric, etc.

Soru

ZarrosLivinglight

06-18-2003, 09:12 AM

Note: EZboards ate my first reply..../grrrr

Cleric/Druid is a viable group combination without a slower if both priests focus exclusively on healing. It works by having one priest start off while the other melees or moderately nukes/dots, etc. (staying over 80m). Then, when priest #1 goes LOM, priest #2 takes over, with priest #1 resuming once priest #2 is LOM, and so on.

We did Tactics pit with a group that had 2 clerics and no slower of any kind. Casters had to watch aggro a lot more closely, as an unslowed mob will chew them up really fast, but the extra healing power present really made that not a whole lot riskier than a more traditional tank-healer-slower combination really.

Also don't forget that more than enchanters and shamans can slow. Beastlords and bards can both slow, and necromancers can slow undead (situationally usefull).

Firemynd

06-18-2003, 09:26 AM

I created this thread with a specific purpose in mind:
To discuss ideas for mitigating the absence of slower/shaman in groups which have other priest class(es) present.

<strong>I respectfully request that moderators edit any post to remove non-topical comments such as those which deal with cleric soloing, class envy, etc.</strong>

BTW, increasing the cleric 'mark' line <span style="text-decoration:underline">would</span> improve cleric's soloing ability, but that is not relevent to this topic.

~Firemynd

Aeloryn

06-18-2003, 09:38 AM

Anyone have a link to any decent information on the actual amount our attack debuffs reduce mob dps? It doesn't seem to be a whole heck of a lot - though having just recently hit 61 I do like that Hand of Ro is nearly unresistable.

I think one fundamental problem regarding the necessity of slows is that SOE sees them as overpowered already. If you remember back when PoP was launched they were talking about allowing mobs to partially ignore the effects of slows -- not sure exactly how that panned out, but the impact of a 75% reduction in attack speed on an insane dps PoP mob obviously is a tremendous ability.

And thus since that one debuff is so powerful, anything that can stack with it *and* be anywhere close to as significant would likely be overpowered. For example, if Hand of Ro caused a mob to miss as much as even a 50% slow, imagine combining that with a 75% shaman slow.

So, perhaps due to a lack of imagination on my part, why not just acknowledge that slows are the king, and throw druids some non-stackable crumbs. The level 14 shaman spell Walking Sleep has a 23%-35% effect from L14-L60 (though what level 60 shaman'd be using the spell is another matter). See lucy.fnord.net if anyone's curious about spell details. Would giving druids a lowbie slow perhaps max 40% really be such a bad thing? --aside from the fundamental lack of imagination. It'd be useless if a shaman, enchanter, or even beastlord was part of the group, but it would mean that druids could mitigate a significant amount of damage when grouped with a cleric.

A comment about mages and ds. I know that mages value their damage shields easily as much as druids if not more as that's the only non-pet buff they have. Regarding Panamah's statement:

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Then again, I usually click off damage shields because I R rogue and I don't get hit and it takes up a buff slot. [/quote]

I'm a bit baffled why you'd assert that mages don't care about this ability and then follow up with the explanation of why you don't get ds'd by a mage. That's it exactly, buff slots are precious and anyone throwing around crap buffs on a raid isn't doing themself or anyone else a favor. Group ds is only useful when there's plenty of buff room available and one is feeling lazy about timing it for renewal. Mages use ds both in group and when soloing--it's a near and dear ability to the class.

Romily 61 Druid
Aeloryn 60 Enchanter
Alyce 62 Mage
Quellious

TeriMoon

06-18-2003, 09:51 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Cleric/Druid is a viable group combination without a slower if both priests focus exclusively on healing.[/quote]

You are correct that this works perfectly well. However, I think most people would characterize this as a nontraditional and considerably less efficient group than the standard group with slower.

Again, there are always going to be those people who like to play the game and will play it for the sheer enjoyment of playing. And there will always be those who play with goals in mind, who want efficiency, and who are closed minded to trying new things, when more traditional groups offer less risk.

Firemynd

06-18-2003, 09:57 AM

Zarros:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Cleric/Druid is a viable group combination without a slower if both priests focus exclusively on healing. [/quote]

That illustrates the problem. When a shaman is present, he or she serves as slower which compliments the cleric by lessening the need for heals; but the shaman can also contribute a substantial amount of DPS him/herself, in addition to providing Haste to meleers and pets.

Having no slower should not force a group to dedicate 2 of its 6 slots (<em>1/3rd of the group</em>) to accomplish the single role of primary healer. A group with CLR+DRU should not be relegated to less than half the efficiency one would find in any group with SHM+DRU or SHM+CLR.

TerriMoon:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Druid DS does not stack with Magician DS line. Theirs overwrites ours as you well know. This would not stack well in groups[/quote]

The mage DS line is not so much better than the druid DS that it is ever 'vastly' more preferable; only in situations where players' fire resistance was a factor would the mage DS be particularly more useful. Looking at our PoP spells, the mage DS is only 5 higher damage than the druid's.

Even so, this thread isn't attempting to redress any problems with druids and mages stacking in groups, because excepting the DS, mages and druids already stack extremely well in groups.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Also, I am trying to imagine what sort of additional debuff would make up for lack of a slower without also overpowering us for solo play or raiding.[/quote]

The debuff I had in mind would decrease the mob's maximum hit amount by a percentage (25-40% seems about right). So if the mob would normally hit for a max of 500 damage, each hit would land for no more than 300-400. Attacking at full speed, an improved cleric mark plus the existing druid DS would yield a significant amount of added damage.

If determined necessary for raid balance, slow spells could overwrite this effect.

~Firemynd

Panamah

06-18-2003, 10:00 AM

One problem I could see on this is that it might make uber encounters much easier. Many boss mobs can't be slowed anyway, so decreasing their damage output would seriously imbalance the encounter.

Hoever, I suppose the damage reduction effect could be resistable perhaps by boss mobs.

The Truth

06-18-2003, 10:21 AM

If you can't handle blunt and to the point statements please don't read on.

I think this is a Horrible Idea.

1. This reduction in damage from the mob by any percent can be viewed virtually as the same effects that slow causes.

Slow is used to reduce damage from the mob.
And adding increased DS is just added fluff.

2. Thou just in a recent post by the author in this thread this issue has changed. But if this new proposed spell was ever aloud to stack with shaman slow it would be over powered.

3. As cold as it may sound. I think it is very necessary for the druid class to think of a unique spell idea to make them needed by a group. And to stop stepping on the abilities of other classes.

Perhap capitolizing on improvements to already in place ability sometimes sought after such as Evac and snare is necessary.

The Truth

ZarrosLivinglight

06-18-2003, 10:32 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><strong><em>Aeloryn</em>:|
So, perhaps due to a lack of imagination on my part, why not just acknowledge that slows are the king, and throw druids some non-stackable crumbs. The level 14 shaman spell Walking Sleep has a 23%-35% effect from L14-L60 (though what level 60 shaman'd be using the spell is another matter). See lucy.fnord.net if anyone's curious about spell details. Would giving druids a lowbie slow perhaps max 40% really be such a bad thing? --aside from the fundamental lack of imagination. It'd be useless if a shaman, enchanter, or even beastlord was part of the group, but it would mean that druids could mitigate a significant amount of damage when grouped with a cleric.</strong>[/quote]

This is an intriguing suggestion I think. My only concern is that asking for this would be asking for more druid corpse-runs honestly. I know that I've stolen aggro, and held it, purely by using drowsy, and unfortunately druids aren't quite as adept at taking a beating as a beastlord is...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><strong><em>Firemynd</em>
That illustrates the problem. When a shaman is present, he or she serves as slower which compliments the cleric by lessening the need for heals; but the shaman can also contribute a substantial amount of DPS him/herself, in addition to providing Haste to meleers and pets.

Having no slower should not force a group to dedicate 2 of its 6 slots (1/3rd of the group) to accomplish the single role of primary healer. A group with CLR+DRU should not be relegated to less than half the efficiency one would find in any group with SHM+DRU or SHM+CLR.
</strong>[/quote]

If you define healing by its objective, rather than method, its actually the same differance. The objective is to keep the group up and functioning while it destroys the mob. CLR/SHM and DRU/SHM achieve this result by combining healing with reducing mob damage output. If mob damage output remains constant (ie. unslowed) then the same result can be achieved by presenting more healing. It requires a cleric that has an ego that can handle not being the star, and a druid that has the discipline to just heal (not a problem in the high end I would hope!)

Our group in Tactics was tank, clericx2, DPSx3 and so the loss of DPS from not having a shaman's pet/dots wasn't especially noticable to me.

The real issue is an apparent unwillingness for the rank and file of EQ to go with non-traditional groups though. I see this as slowly changing, as more and more people start breaking out of the Kunark mindset. A lot of people have some very set ways of how things should happen, and refuse to contemplate there might be newer/better/differant ways to handle it.

I have been guilty of it myself. In a teir1 group with my cleric we needed a slower and ignored the fact that there was an LFG beastlord because "their slow sucked". We eventually took them on the agreement it was until "a real slower could be found."

Four hours later that group broke up. We never replaced the beastlord, who handled slows nicely and provided more than enough DPS to make mobs die faster so the increased damage was handleable by me. It taught me a lesson about thinking outside the box.

Panamah

06-18-2003, 10:34 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>1. This reduction in damage from the mob by any percent can be viewed virtually as the same effects that slow causes.[/quote]

Well actually that's true. Perhaps the damage reduction shouldn't be as great as slow. It would tend to displace shamans from groups.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
2. Thou just in a recent post by the author in this thread this issue has changed. But if this new proposed spell was ever aloud to stack with shaman slow it would be over powered.[/quote]
Don't let it stack with slow. That's pretty easy to solve.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>. As cold as it may sound. I think it is very necessary for the druid class to think of a unique spell idea to make them needed by a group. And to stop stepping on the abilities of other classes.

Perhap capitolizing on improvements to already in place ability sometimes sought after such as Evac and snare is necessary.[/quote]

Evac and snare are not sought after at high levels. There's no need for evac in PoP and snare can be done by many classes.

Madai

06-18-2003, 10:56 AM

One thing VI should do is monitor zone stats. Monitor for ungrouped people, people in groups, and people in raids.

Then they will see highly utilized zones and underutilized zones. Then they can choose a method to revamp the underutilized zones: mere ZEM adjust, mob relocation, etc. for some zones, they could choose a high-end approach, and perhaps make whole regions of unslowable mobs, rather than give druids more power, smply give them more options :P

Batou062671

06-18-2003, 10:56 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There's no need for evac in PoP and snare can be done by many classes. [/quote]
Lets also not forget that there are a good number of XP mobs that are immune to snare.

rezinn

06-18-2003, 11:05 AM

Not a bad idea. Normally I don't give these a second thought.

I do agree with "capitolizing on improvements to already in place ability," however.

Good argument that slow would reduce it's effectiveness.

Fayne Dethe

06-18-2003, 11:21 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>A 30 percent decrease in soloing in PoP is STILL better than group exp rates if you are using charm to accomplish it. Dont know if that is being widely recognized as fact here or not. Because it doesnt look like it. [/quote]

Oh please, have you seen the XP in PoStorms now?? Thats really the only zone where druids used to be able to solo with charm for decent xp (Tactics isnt that viable, especially for more than one druid at a time). Remember, now there is a charm XP penalty + the zone ZEM reduction - Storms used to be higher than Valor cause mobs were alot harder and not enough people visited it. The giants have not been made any easier but the xp has been drastically reduced (no longer any bonus over Valor). This makes PoStorms not very worthwhile for the soloist or a group. Plus, ghetto healing of a mob has been nerfed so you have to spend a ton of mana healing a pet instead of just re-charming it. You make far less XP doing charm soloing now than any group in tier2+ with much more risk. I dont know any high level druid personally who still uses solo charm as their primary means of xp'ing any more, I've only used it recently to farm waters for tradeskill earing quest (and I was duo'ing at the time ;p). If you want to complain about charm soloing, look to enchanters, not druids.

Belkram Marwolf

06-18-2003, 12:56 PM

One large problem is PoP raid level mobs. The mobs are meant to have tremendous damage output and some of them arent even fully slowable. This idea would make a lot of them trivial. ANY unslowable mob would be rendered much easier by a large factor by this idea.

The second thing is if this is allowed to stack with slow at all it would make a lot of encounters...easy. Falling off a log type easy.

It would require rebalancing huge amounts of content. I cant see that happening. Only thing I see keeping it from happening is making it not stack with slow and making it a "slow tag" so that mobs that are unslowable cant be affected by this spell combination.

As far as my earlier comments regarding "class envy"....if you want to talk about group balancing you need to address the balance picture in its entirety. Not just cut one portion of it to suit your need of the moment.

Belkram Marrwolf

BricSummerthorne

06-18-2003, 08:44 PM

<em>Zarros said</em>
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
If you define healing by its objective, rather than method, its actually the same differance. The objective is to keep the group up and functioning while it destroys the mob. CLR/SHM and DRU/SHM achieve this result by combining healing with reducing mob damage output.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
The thing with slow is that it's not an additive effect, it's multiplicative. Take your example:
==============================
CLR/SHM => +10 healing - (16 mob damage - 10 shaman slow)
Result: +10 healing - 6 mob damage = +4 excess healing.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Only thing I see keeping it from happening is making it not stack with slow and making it a "slow tag" so that mobs that are unslowable cant be affected by this spell combination. [/quote]

Thanks for answering your own question. Now that we agree that these changes could be implemented without trivializing content, next issue?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>As far as my earlier comments regarding "class envy"....if you want to talk about group balancing you need to address the balance picture in its entirety. [/quote]

Yes, as I've said, all classes should be examined for grouping balance; especially those which have had their solo capabilities as a factor into their overall class balance, since SOE has been taking potshots at solo methods and penalizing those who don't group.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Not just cut one portion of it to suit your need of the moment. [/quote]

The only way to address 'grouping balance' issues is to compare how all classes stack with each other in group settings. This thread was meant to explore one particularly poor stacking combination - one which negatively impacts druid group desirability.

Appropriate topic for a druid community board, and timely, considering that Absor has specifically asked this community for suggestions about ways to improve druid desirability.

My ideas are accepting the fact that clerics are going to be preferred as main healers in most groups. Rather than suggesting that the cleric's desirable attributes be given to the druid in some form (e.g. rez), I'm trying to think of alternate ways for clerics and druids to compliment each other. Since they are most inefficient when paired in a group which lacks a slower, that's an area I would consider a priority.

As for comments about aggro management, I do agree that the druid class has been left by the wayside. Our only real tool for dealing with deadly aggro is to escape.

However, in scenarios where the group has spent time working its way through a maze, across a large zone, down into a cave system or dungeon, etc., succoring them back to the zone entrance is a death sentence for group morale. Evacuating is a form of retreat, which in many minds equates to 'mission failed' -- they're unlikely to have any desire to restart that mission. And if someone died before the escape was made, the added downtime of recovery is an even worse hit for the continuity of an Exp group.

If we aren't to be given any sort of aggro management tool, it makes even more sense to figure out how to improve cleric and druid stacking. If SOE is open to the idea of giving us a method of dealing with aggro, then perhaps there won't be a need for better stacking. Maybe the question is: how likely is it that SOE will give us a 'jolt' spell or SCS to manage aggro, compared to the likelihood that they will tweak our existing abilities?

~Firemynd

ZarrosLivinglight

06-19-2003, 03:19 AM

Bric,

You are right that CLR/DRU, or any other 2-healer combination is not as efficient as one involving a slower, but it does work in those cases where a slower is not available, or a shaman/enchanter is not available and the group is making due with a bard/beastlord as main slower. If the alternative is to sit and get no xp, I'd be the first person to happily grab another main-healer type and go with it. Given the relative lack of clerics at times, the odds of getting 2 clerics is kind of slim, and given the relative abundance of druids, its often easier to grab a druid for the 2nd healer slot.

Max efficiency, while desired, just isn't always possible after all. It would be more efficient to have a 65 mage in a group in BoT instead of the 62 rogue, but if the 62 rogue is available and the 65 mage isn't, grab the rogue.

Demasia

06-19-2003, 04:32 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>However, in scenarios where the group has spent time working its way through a maze, across a large zone, down into a cave system or dungeon, etc., succoring them back to the zone entrance is a death sentence for group morale. Evacuating is a form of retreat, which in many minds equates to 'mission failed' -- they're unlikely to have any desire to restart that mission. And if someone died before the escape was made, the added downtime of recovery is an even worse hit for the continuity of an Exp group.[/quote]

Maybe it is that our Succor hasn't been updated to content changes? What level was Succor and how many years since it has been upgraded anyway? Succor doesn't mean "teleport" by definition and there is no reason that upgraded versions at 52 and 60 couldn't address the above weaknesses of our existing obsolete and mid-level spell for receiving divine aid for groups.

TeriMoon

06-19-2003, 05:02 AM

I think that's an idea that is well worth looking at Dem, but such a spell would really have to have a long recast time, wouldn't it? Some sort of succor spell that would be like a group FD, or DA...this wouldbe incredibly powerful. I'm trying to think of some sort of spell that could be a "succor" and not be overpowering. If the goal was not to evacuate fromt he area, but to provide the group with some added boost that will ameliorate a bad pull or something...isn't this what SotW is supposed to be for?

I just can't imagine what such an upgraded succor spell would look like.

AmonraSet

06-19-2003, 05:23 AM

So you want a spell that decreases damage output by a percentage and doesn’t stack with slow. But it’s not a slow…

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

"Romeo and Juliet", Act II, Scene 2, by William Shakespeare.

TeriMoon

06-19-2003, 05:36 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So you want a spell...[/quote]

Who is the "you" you are speaking of here? I see people discussing an issue they see with druid grouping. I dont' see any general agreement or anyone suggesting petitions to SOE asking anything.

If you have something insightful to contribute, please do so. You have already said you don't believe that the discussion is worthwhile because of the lack of cleric soloing abilities. That's fine, you are welcome to that opinion. But, are we going to be treated to variations of that opinion every 10-20 posts on the subject? And if so, why?

Autumn10

06-19-2003, 07:06 AM

To answer the issue started by Truth and continued with by Panamah:

Snare - not needed anywhere near as much as it used to be so EVERYONE STOP USING THIS AS A BASIS FOR AN ARGUMENT CONCERNING WHAT DRUIDS BRING TO A GROUP FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! With all the lame and inane runspeed immune mobs in the game now it just doesn't fly.

Evac - I have to disagree with you Panamah. Evacs aren't just there to save you from CR, they're also there to save you period. In fact, I think they get used a lot more for the latter than former. So what if there's GY's now? I still don't want to get killed because GY's still mean downtime while you wait for them, downtime while you rebuff, and if you don't have a cleric in the group to res then you're REALLY hurting. I hope the clerics out there REALIZE that when they start trying to onload that crap about res'ing not getting them groups because it sure as hell does.

As for clerics being able to solo I don't care, but this thread isn't about that. If you want to talk about that issue then start another thread, or better yet post it on the cleric boards. I'm sure if druids were made more desirable to groups in such a way that it left clerics out in the cold then clerics would get compensated. Soloing has been nerfed to hell and back anyway so if you want it you can have it. Have fun trying to get experience with soloing after they nerf it even more in the future.

sudawilde

06-19-2003, 08:56 AM

Quote:
__________________________________________________ __
I'm sure if druids were made more desirable to groups in such a way that it left clerics out in the cold then clerics would get compensated.
__________________________________________________ __

and I am even willing to bet they would not take years to do it either.

Thurdar1

06-19-2003, 09:05 AM

One thing that I think people are forgetting is that the cleric/enchanter duo is more powerful than any of the healer duos and still leaves 4 slots open for DPS. Argueably Druid/Enchanter is more powerful than any of the healer duos.

As for druid slows, there's already 4 classes that can do it, if you make it worse than any of the 4 then it becomes fairly useless for a full group. Druids don't have the debuffs to land a slow early, or the defensive abilities to handle a bounced slow. Landing a 40% slow once the mob is at half hitpoints is gonna be meaningless.

In my opinion, look elsewhere for group desireability. A damage shield that works as a percentage of the mob hit would be one possibility but how do you balance it against raid mobs?

How about an inplace succor for druids and wizards? Call it planar shift and give it a max duration of 2 minutes. During that time, the group can't move but it works the same way FD does as far as mob argo is concerned.

Belkram Marwolf

06-19-2003, 10:37 AM

There are 3 factors to playability to the playerbase.

Soloing
Grouping
Raiding

All three ought to be evaluated at the same time. You dont simply evaluate one portion at a time. It doesnt work out that well. I suppose what you are saying is that Druid groupability is so low that they need re-evaluated there, irregardless of how bad their primary competition is at soloing if they compete with them for groups. Is this correct?

I know a lot of people dont buy this premise. I sure dont. Im not saying Druid groupability is perfect. Im saying you dont upgrade it in a vacuum. It affects the overall balance picture of the priests if you just upgrade the groupability of one class and dont touch the others.

Sudawilde : we got upgrades in Luclin rather quickly. 3 new heals and the hammers, they didnt solve a DAMN thing. I have zero confidence in Sony OR Verants ability to do anything right regarding clerics. They dont understand the class and refuse to upgrade it offensively. The only way to make Clerics solo better is in offensive upgrades. Or adding something even I think is overpowering for Clerics : slow, in any shape or form. If the Luclin solution is the quick route, Id rather wait for one that actually does something, thanks all the same.

Belkram Marrwolf

AmonraSet

06-19-2003, 10:49 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Who is the "you" you are speaking of here? [/quote]

The person(s) asking for the spell.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You have already said you don't believe that the discussion is worthwhile because of the lack of cleric soloing abilities.[/quote]

No, I gave my opinion as part of the discussion. I never said that the discussion itself is not worthwhile.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But, are we going to be treated to variations of that opinion every 10-20 posts on the subject? And if so, why?[/quote]

This I will agree with. These discussions have been going round and round on TDG for a while now and havent been going anywhere much. Its so easy to be sucked into these kinds of arguments where neither side changes their position but I will try and resist the urge to post further!

Firemynd

06-19-2003, 12:46 PM

Belkram,

If you want to be inciteful with "bull hockey" and such childishness, please direct it in email -- to someone who's willing to coddle you and tell you what you want to hear. Sorry, that would not be me.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There are 3 factors to playability to the playerbase.

Soloing
Grouping
Raiding

All three ought to be evaluated at the same time. You dont simply evaluate one portion at a time. It doesnt work out that well.[/quote]

Apparently you've been sleeping for the past four years, because reevaluating classes and addressing balance issues has always been done in portions. Sometimes to specific classes, sometimes to sets of classes (e.g. 'caster balancing'), and sometimes to certain attributes shared by individual classes from different sets.

Whether portional balancing works out "well" is subjective; although from the game's success and longevity, I'd say it has worked out fairly well. I for one do not want to be around the day they release a patch to rebalance "all" classes.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I suppose what you are saying is that Druid groupability is so low that they need re-evaluated there, irregardless of how bad their primary competition is at soloing if they compete with them for groups. Is this correct?[/quote]

Are you reading what people are saying? I can post in another language if English is secondary for you. Just let me know. )

Yes, Belkram, I'm saying that druid grouping desirability is low; it has been low for a pretty long time. However, now that we can no longer fall back on soloing for somewhat equitable progression when groups don't invite us, we have little choice but to ask SOE for more grouping appeal.

Lot of other druid players have been saying the same or similar. How many complaints from frustrated LFG druids must you read before <span style="text-decoration:underline">you</span> can recognize that there is indeed a 'groupability' problem?

Would it help you acknowledge that a problem exists if Absor himself asked this community for suggestions on ways to fix it? Oh wait, he did.

Most of the people who claim to have no trouble finding groups are those like myself who primarily raid and group with guildmates and friends. Unlike myself, though, they are looking at this only from their own perspective. As Sobe inferred, viewpoints vary greatly depending on where the individual "is" in the game.

Not everyone is so fortunate, though. For those who aren't in a guild (and those whose former guilds have disbanded), they rely on soloing and grouping for individual progression. If they're rarely invited to groups, how much chance do they have to meet people and interact with folks in prospective guilds?

SOE is rewarding groupers in unprecidented ways, and penalizing soloers more overtly than ever before. Clerics should be rejoicing, because they *are* among the top three preferred classes for groups and guilds.

If SOE was implementing ways to reward soloers and penalize groupers, clerics would be clamoring for soloing abilities even more than they have been; would you tell <strong><em>them</em></strong> "You dont simply evaluate one portion at a time" ??

~Firemynd

Exedor

06-19-2003, 02:25 PM

>>> CLR+SHM is an extremely desirable combination for grouping and DRU+SHM is quite desirable as well; both of these combinations have adequate healing, slowing, and buffing. A group with CLR+DRU, however, will need to reserve an additional slot for a slower/haster, so this is usually not a desirable pairing.

The part I have a problem is the "DRU+SHM is quite desirable as well" - Who does the ressing? This statement seems to assume that noone cares about res when, in my experience, it's pretty much the entire reason groups will wait for insane amounts of time for a cleric even though there are half a dozen druids lfg.

gamilenka

06-19-2003, 03:49 PM

--Going to ignore the COMPLETE inability of a cleric to solo 60 to 65 in order to address priest group desireability?--

Yes, read the thread title...it's about grouping.

--Anyone have a link to any decent information on the actual amount our attack debuffs reduce mob dps? It doesn't seem to be a whole heck of a lot - though having just recently hit 61 I do like that Hand of Ro is nearly unresistable.--

eqcastersrealm.com or eqdruids.com both have info on spells, and how much of what they do. I haven't crossed them though.

The main benifit of our debuffs is the other stuffs they decrease, not necessarily atk and ac. You can get just about any player in to the neg of svf if you stack our debuffs on them. If you have a wiz in the group...the mob is toast.

I still think the easy answer is just to up our dd damage to the same, or close to the same as mage dd; and, add a faster acting dot that does significant damage. Shaman/Necro can still have better dot all around, mages still have their pets, and if we are only on the level as mages, then wizards are still ahead in that area...so we won't be overpowering anyone.

Autumn10

06-19-2003, 06:19 PM

Are you worried about druids being made more groupable and clerics not getting what you think will balance them in the fastest time possible Belkram? God forbid you should have to spend weeks, months, or even *gasp* YEARS like druids and other classes have in the past to become even REMOTELY groupable. If you have to wait a few weeks then I think that's small price to pay to get the ability to solo.

As mentioned by Firemynd, SoE usually does that stuff in portions so I wouldn't expect them to rush right out to do the code to make sure one class gets balanced post haste. Why should they? What makes clerics so special? How many other classes have had to wait to be unbroken or balanced? How many are still waiting?

I'm sorry but I can't find that much sympathy for a class that has had a monopoly on grouping for so long like clerics. You can be allowed to solo, doesn't bother me. But don't make outrageous demands about the timetable for it.

Peyotie

06-19-2003, 07:22 PM

New spell I was thinking about. I beleive it was a shaman talking about how we should come up with ideas that wouldn't step on other peoples toes.

This spell would kind of step on rogues toes but VERY VERY slightly.

With PoP there is really little benefit to evac/succor spells. With GY and such there is not as big of a loss with dying. The big loss is loss of time in waiting for the GY to function, then getting the person rezed then getting BACK to your spot.

My idea for a spell is this. It is an 'evacuate' type spell that doesn't move you. Cast the spell and every member of your party gains the 'evade' ability of a rogue. As long as they don't cast a spell or move or attack they remain 'invisible' and the mob becomes mind wiped so as to forget they are there. This would be a pretty powerful spell that would gain us a spot in groups as if things were going badly rather then evac everyone out simply cast this spell and combat stops, the mobs forget you were there, they wander back to their spawn points and the group gets a breather, chance to 'start over' without people dying. It would be a viable option to 'rez' since if used right people wouldn't have as much of a chance to die. It also would be a very handy spell to have in general.

Thoughts ideas??

Firemynd

06-19-2003, 09:36 PM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The part I have a problem is the "DRU+SHM is quite desirable as well" - Who does the ressing? [/quote]

I can see how the ability to rez is a factor in group desirability (as much as clerics deny it gets them groups), but that ability is a major attribute of the cleric class, and I think it is in the game's best interest to avoid too much homogenization among priests.

On the other hand, teleportation has typically been considered a major attribute of the druid class, so I do not think it would be unreasonable for druids to gain some ability to open a mystic portal which returned a player to his/her corpse.

EQ would have probably been a more balanced game for priests to start with, if resurrection spells had required that the rez recipient be targetable - similar to corpse summons. This would have provided a unique role for druids in being the class who could quickly transport the player back to camp for the cleric to resurrect.

Doubting that SOE would drastically revamp core attributes this late in the game's evolution, I believe our time would be better spent lobbying for less invasive ways of fine-tuning priest balance.

Even so, if druids were given some way of binding a character's corpse into an imbued gem which made their corpse 'portable' (within the same zone) and suspended its timer, groups could at least resume hunting without worrying about the corpse being left behind or becoming too old to resurrect.

Back to the main topic of this thread. I think it's not only important to look at druid desirability for groups in general, but to also make sure druids aren't seen strictly as redundant healers in groups with clerics. Instead of taking anything away from one of the best 'grouping' classes, I'd like to see us fit better <em>with</em> them in group settings.

As for a new type of "succor" spell, what some have proposed has sounded like the equivalent of a group aggro-wipe/invulnerability, and I just don't think that would be considered balanced by most people.

Now, if an advanced succor spell would evacuate to zone line not only players in group, but also any of the group's corpses within range of the succor, you'd alleviate some downtime (waiting for them to pop at graveyard), and enable groupmates to at least have their gear to immediately resume hunting... even if they couldn't get a res right away.

~Firemynd

Aidon Rufflefuzz

06-19-2003, 10:57 PM

If I recall, from testing back around PoP beta era, our debuffs effect a mobs dps by around 7% when they everything that can go on at once is on at once.

I can't recall for certain though.

Demasia

06-20-2003, 04:41 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I still think the easy answer is just to up our dd damage to the same, or close to the same as mage dd; and, add a faster acting dot that does significant damage. Shaman/Necro can still have better dot all around, mages still have their pets, and if we are only on the level as mages, then wizards are still ahead in that area...so we won't be overpowering anyone.[/quote]

Wouldn't we rival or surpass all classes in DPS where we can use a DC pet (short of charming)? Seems overpowering to me.

gamilenka

06-20-2003, 01:12 PM

Mage pets would still be better...dire charm only works on things up to what level? Wizards would still have more powerful nukes that are more mana efficent, and fizzle less.

Not to mention they have better mana regen anyhow, so they would still be nuking more than us.

Natan Magus

06-20-2003, 01:53 PM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Wizards would still have more powerful nukes that are more mana efficent, and fizzle less.[/quote]
Where does that come from?
You got already a more powerfull cold based nuke than Wizards do get. And i fizzle as often as a Druid... no difference.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
You got already a more powerfull cold based nuke than Wizards do get. And i fizzle as often as a Druid... no difference.

Aside that i miss DoTs, SoE, buffs, debuffs, Regen and.. .most important... my heals.
[/quote]
Natan,
Your confusion is understandable, many people confuse the maximum size of a nuke with the "power" of a nuke. Let me assure you, wizards are the pre-eminent nukers of the game. There are two main factors involved:

1) Aggro - The actual size of a nuke is not as relevant as how fast that nuke delivers damage. The amount of damage delivered, over time, is capped by the amount of aggro the spell generates. Druids have no means of reducing this aggro cap, Wizards do.

2) Resists - The most powerful Wizard ice nuke is something called a "Draught", which penetrates resistance. Draught of E'ci checks against 50 less cold resitance than Winter's Frost, which again means more damage delivered over time.

So, although it may seem to you that the Druid nuke is "more powerful", it is actually less effective at it's purpose than the equivalent Wizard nuke.

On another note, Wizards actually do have buffs, and while they do not have resist or AC debuffs, they do have stuns, whcih accomplish the same purpose. Wizards are also the masters of teleportation, to a degree Druids can only dream of.

Obviously, clerics would get Bigger and Biggest at 45 and 55, and perhaps a better fast heal at 65...all right on time with the original progression of the game. When the game ended at 50, and tanks only ever saw like 2khp, Greater healing was barely adequete, and Sup healing was nice. C-heal was a stout advantage that I *still* believe came too early in the game--it should have been 49 at release, or 60 after Kunark...

As to damage mitigation, both clerics and druids do get spells to do this, though they are rarely used---stuns. Setting up a stun chain on a mob can let it be tanked by a warrior in crafted if done right. Granted, druid stuns aren't as numerous or effective as a wizard or clerics, but then your 2nd best at everything, not *the* best. Most severe problem is mobs that are immune to stun, but then, you don't have to fight those mobs, you can go elsewhere.

Make it a Rune that absorbs X amount of damage.... then give it a self regen component that returns 5 or 10% of that per tick. For instance--

Level 5
Sheild of Bark
Absorbs 30 points of damage. 3 points of protection are returned each tick.

Obviously it would be far more powerfull at high levels, depending on damage absorbed and it's regen rate, but it would allow druids to capitalize on their damage sheilds, and mitigate a fair amount of damage as well, as the constant per tick regen would be substancial at high levels, basically cancelling a portion of damage each attack sequence.

While it still stacks with Slow, as it effects the PC rather than the mob, it is balanced by the fact that if this is good enough, then slow is not *required* and is potentialy detrimental when DS is factored in.

Natan Magus

06-20-2003, 10:30 PM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Natan,
Your confusion is understandable, many people confuse the maximum size of a nuke with the "power" of a nuke. Let me assure you, wizards are the pre-eminent nukers of the game. There are two main factors involved:

1) Aggro - The actual size of a nuke is not as relevant as how fast that nuke delivers damage. The amount of damage delivered, over time, is capped by the amount of aggro the spell generates. Druids have no means of reducing this aggro cap, Wizards do.

2) Resists - The most powerful Wizard ice nuke is something called a "Draught", which penetrates resistance. Draught of E'ci checks against 50 less cold resitance than Winter's Frost, which again means more damage delivered over time.

So, although it may seem to you that the Druid nuke is "more powerful", it is actually less effective at it's purpose than the equivalent Wizard nuke.[/quote]
I am not confused, i am very familiar with the facts.
Of course i know your arguements, but you miss the point.
The point is, that in some instances the 'big bang' is wanted and needed from WIzards.
Or why do you think we get SoS and AT?
It are the spells, which deliver the most DPS 'now', in that second, where you want to have that.

There is absolutely no reason, why we don't get a big ice nuke with PoP, yet YOU do.
For every draught there is as well a big ice bang, save the cold department.

Most important point: Big nukes benefit from focus items much more than small nukes, because of the %-nature of focus items.

Regarding resists. Now that we can see the spell damage, i can assure you, that druids nukes are as resistant as our wizard nukes. You do have absolutely no reason to be resisted - especially with you Cold and Fire debuffs.
That arguement is moot.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
On another note, Wizards actually do have buffs, and while they do not have resist or AC debuffs, they do have stuns, whcih accomplish the same purpose. Wizards are also the masters of teleportation, to a degree Druids can only dream of.[/quote]
Oh please, don't try to fool me. (No offense.)
First off, stuns are not a buff, they don't heal someone , or increase someone's HP, or regen himn, nor they grant him more manaregen etc, i think you know that. Second, stuns in PoP are useless for the most part, at least for the Wiz class. (Most are just off too high level to be stunned efficienty. As well my role is to do damage and not to chain stun a Mob, even IF i coul do it.)

Regarding the Teleportation bonus you were talking about... Well, TLs don't get us into groups neither. They are only annoying.
I have absolutely no problem of sharing TLs with Druids, push for that, if you want to. Heck i would be happy if they took TLs away from me and gave it to Druids instead for a bigger Ice Nuke for Wizards, TLs annoy the heck out of most Wizards. (Thank god, we have the Port-Stones now.)

Sage Natan Magus
65 Arcanist
MM
FR

Firemynd

06-20-2003, 11:50 PM

Natan:

Please do not troll.

It should not be too difficult for you to read the topic (e.g. "Grouping Balance of Priests") and figure out for yourself that wizard nukes have <span style="text-decoration:underline">nothing</span> to do with how well priest classes balance each other in group settings.

~Firemynd

Grhar

06-22-2003, 04:56 PM

How about a Splurt type slow spell? Call it something like "Aging of the Grove".

Duration would be 1 minute, and on average would be equivalent to a 50% slow. It would not stack with traditional slowing spells, and recasting it on the mob would reset it to Tick 1.

New strategies could develop around this spell, such as chain stunning a mob for the first few ticks while the slow is beginning to build up. The early part of fights would be the most fierce & dangerous, and after about 30 seconds, pulling agro off the MT wouldn't be so bad because the mob will be 50%-100% slowed. Overall, it wouldn't be as effective as traditional slowing spells, but would serve as an alternative when a slower isn't present.

I also like the Curse idea. Make the mob miss 50% more often, so it turns into the equivalent of a 50% slow. If it doesn't stack with slow, it won't be imbalancing.

Here is another neat idea I have for clerics: A mana absorption shield buff thing, which could be cast on a tank. Everytime the tank gets hit, the cleric gains a certain amount of mana. For example, lets say it is 5 mana per hit. Tank gets hit 40 times, cleric regains 200 mana. An unslowed mob will increase the rate at which clerics regain mana from this spell... so it might be possible for clerics to serve as primary healer in planar groups without a slower. A slower would still be preferrable due to agro issues which would arise from having to cast additional healing spells.

The mana absorption thing could also be added to damage shields for magicians & druids, preferrably at a much lower rate. Say 1-2 mana per hit. You'd get mana faster in groups without a slower, and it wouldn't be imbalancing because you'd *need* the extra mana if the mob isn't slowed.

This is a list of what every class does its best (over another class) correct if im wrong or forgot anything). Now Sony says that soloing, grouping, and raiding abilities must be equal in order for classes to be balanced, yet I don't see a warrior soloing as good as a necro. I dont see a need for druids to cast seasons in an xp group that only pulls melee only mobs.

I've said it a million times before. If a cleric and a druid are LFG, a cleric is going to get picked. If I stroll on into PoV and 2 Druids come walking in a I see /ooc BC looking for healer, rarely will one of those druids get picked, unless they are desprate. They will wait for a cleric to join them. THAT is why the druid CHeal was a waste. Otherwise its nice to have for rage tanks on raids.

If you take a look at the list, Clerics and Chanters are the most needed. They do alot better than any other class. Lets take a chanter for instance. Soloing, possable...(they did get thier charm nerfed though), grouping (KEI, slower (if no shaman), speed, mez, mr (if needed). Raiding...same thing. Then there is a druid...this forum is full of them, so I wont go there. WHY does a chanter get a number of things that it does better? When some classes are hurting for something to do.

My solution to all of this...
Take away some of our soloing ability (why do we even need it after the last soloing xp nerf, I'd rather group anyways). Give us something that we can do BETTER than any other class in the game. Nerf Virtue, let it stack with BoT9. DR/PR/MR power? I dunno. In order for us to get something, we are going to have to lose something. I think it's only fair.

Arkin Ryndale

06-22-2003, 08:13 PM

My solution is to not tweak powers, but tweak perception. While there are log parsers, there should be direct in game totals that players can see.

Show total exp per hour. Show HP healed and damage done totals per mob per player. Somehow show impact of each player in the group. I think people will see that druids, and every class in fact, contributes nicely to groups.

Sometimes getting experience right away is better than waiting for the the optimal experience group that will only get you maybe 10% more experience per hour. Also consider that searching for optimal experience does not always equate with optimal fun. Anyone can take on a slowed mob with a warrior, cleric, and shammy. Yet try 2 mages, 2 druids, 1 necro and 1 monk. Tricky? Maybe. Fun, you bet!

Kireiina

06-22-2003, 08:38 PM

<--- bitter shaman.

In most XP groups i'd take an enchanter or even a beastlord (at 65) over a shaman. On raids it is different, but in XP groups they simply have more to offer. Especially since the shaman heals are the weakest of all the priest classes. I suspect enchanter heals + VoQ on the clerics efficient CH more than makes up the slight difference in slow percentage. This is especially true since slow mitigation in PoP reduces the relative difference.

Mind you given enchanter + cleric I can't see much of a role for either the shaman or druid. The classes need a deep re-design where each can play a core role in a group yet they still have unique strengths. But i'm not going to be waiting up for that one.

Aidon Rufflefuzz

06-22-2003, 09:39 PM

Ah druid stuns. rofl.

roflmao.

roflmmfao.

Ok..ok, I can type now.

The druid stun line is the most resisted slow recasting worthless piece of crap.

lets not bring that one up.

Kaledan

06-23-2003, 03:26 AM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
Now Sony says that soloing, grouping, and raiding abilities must be equal in order for classes to be balanced, yet I don't see a warrior soloing as good as a necro.
[/quote]

Source for this quote? If that quote were accurate, they would obviously have to redo class balance from scratch. This would make the current discussion pointless, as a 'druid' after rebalancing like that would have nothing in common with the current druid other than the name.

Soru

Aidon Rufflefuzz

06-23-2003, 06:50 AM

Rich Waters said that in relation to <strong>priest</strong> balancing.

I don't think Sony will ever be foolish enough to make it so meleer can easily solo/duo again. Not after the debacle which was luclin.

gamilenka

06-23-2003, 03:03 PM

You fizzle as often as a druid? I rarely see wizards fizzle.

Wizard nukes are more efficient over time, and wizards still have better self mana regen that druids...even if druid and wizard nukes do the exact same damage throughout the entire game (which they obviously don't), you would still be better nukers.

Druid get fire and cold, but they get resisted quite a bit. Some of the debuffs we get come from one dd or another. Those effects don't last very long. The other debuffs draw so much aggro it's risky to use.

Druid stuns are a joke. They take a long time to be able to recast. The only advantage is a fairly quick cast time. Druid stuns are nowhere near as effective, or can even be landed as much, as wizard stuns.

Under wizards and clerics, paladins are before druids for stuns.

And again...this is about priest class group balancing, and finding ways to get druids more welcomed in groups. From around level 45-57 almost nobody wants a druid in their group. All the stuff that has been mentioned that druids can do, doesn't matter to most people in that level range.

Divina

06-23-2003, 04:35 PM

You know people keep saying that stun is a "cleric based" skill.

You know something to the effect of druids slow a mobs movement, shamans slow a mobs attack speed, and clerics can temperarily do both.

But more classes have stun, and there are more weapons that proc stun when compared with snare or slow - other "essiental" priest skills.

Paladins are the BEST stunners in the game.

Just as a representation, look at the number of stuns classes get for 61+ mobs.

I think I remember it being this thread ( if it is not, I am sorry ); while, I was posting this came to mind.

I see people all the time asking for an "upgrade" to ensnare. I think that ensnare is as good as it is going to get. In order for us to get an upgrade to snare, they would have NERF ensnare in its current state... just to get back to where we have it now.

I keep seeing people talk about how clerics use a spell that is level 39. Well, it is because there is NO upgrades. I am sure if there was an upgrade clerics would use that one.

But we (or at least I) use a couple level 29 spells - Ensnare and HoN. The reason we use them... there are no upgrades.

The problem is not with the classes themselves, but the lack of forsight - that was/is the problem.

Tiane

06-23-2003, 05:06 PM

Draught of Thunder (wiz nuke/stun spell) has been upgraded to a level 65 stun (well, interrupt to be technical) on test. It will go live. That makes 2.

They still wont be satisfied till they have bigger cold based eye candy than us though. /shrug.

Might as well be tossing Superballs at them, wouldn't bounce better though.

Gimli fan

06-24-2003, 09:58 AM

The problem as I see it is that the coporation intended regen and DS to balance versus a shammy slow. That is how I see it. It does not.

Slow scales, and damn well at that.

Regen and DS are nice to have. Whatever the case proposed it must scale with the mob "progression/evolution".

I am sorry that Druids have so many nice to haves, and some great abilities, I really am...but I want more. Its a simple thing I want, to group...GOT IT? To come to peace with it I simply quit.

I -may- return to the game when the next grouping expansion comes out and play my monk. Unless things happen for Druids, which I doubt, I surely won't dust him off. After getting the shaft for so long, I doubt I will come out of retierment (sp) with any charecter anyway.

How this issue could simmer for 2 years is beyond me. Thus the reason I won't buy a game like SWG coming out of the gate so far from completion. I have limited respect, and less confidence in these people and will need to be won back.

With some many jobless people out there it makes me want to puke the lack of dedication to their customer base (not just noisy ubers who dont represent...like Jenny from the block ;) ).

Alchork01

06-24-2003, 11:19 AM

Cleric here.

Give druids a fire or cold based ~50-60% slow. You can then use your debuffs to help land the slow easier if needed. Might even open up extra raid desireability as previously difficult to slow mobs could be "druid" slowed.

Shamans would have best slows, reasonable heals and incredible mana regen
Druids would have average slow, good heals and utility
Clerics would have no slow, best heals and rez

Let any two of focus, virtue and PoT9 stack with each other, but not all 3. (I didn't do the math to see if it makes sense).

Any pair of the priest classes would then be able to compliment each other in groups well.

The Truth

06-24-2003, 11:23 AM

-Gimli fan-

Are you trying to guilt SoE readers to give druids an essentially needed druid only provided group ability?

If so, I don't think it will happen. By a single person threatening to quit.

A unique idea for druids is necessary such as a "revised" and very needed Evac or succor for the new coming expansion dealing with primarily dungeons.

Druids can't have anymore requests to have different skills that other classes have.

It does not help relations with those classes that already have that ability that druids are requesting (such as slow or rez). These types of request are possibly, further diminishing a chance for a change to better druids, from perhaps ever happening.

The Truth

Stormfront

06-24-2003, 11:33 AM

Some people wouldn't know The Truth if it hit them upside the head with a large stick. Trolling under the name "The Truth" wins you no favor in my book. Gimli was guilting noone, he simply stated things as they were. He quit, he MIGHT come back.

Now troll elsewhere please.

The Truth

06-24-2003, 12:00 PM

- Quoted By -
*Stormfront*
--------------------------------------------------------
Some people wouldn't know The Truth if it hit them upside the head with a large stick. Trolling under the name "The Truth" wins you no favor in my book. Gimli was guilting noone, he simply stated things as they were. He quit, he MIGHT come back.

And crying the pronoun, Troll everytime your displeased is a scapegoat method which does not help the discussion being made.

Remember, your not Gimli. You don't know whether he is guilting anyone for that matter. But your free to your opinion, just as I am.

Also, Please note I offered advice to priest balancing. And provided an idea that would better druids.

The Truth
(Its extremely childish to poke fun at a name too.
This posting name does not have to do with whether what I say is the end all Truth to any subject. Rather it has to do with my Favoriate song/Poem.)

Stormfront

06-24-2003, 12:30 PM

Well, considering you have all of 6 posts, and I have been posting here for 3 1/2 years or so, I feel I might just know Gimli better than you. You come here accusing a Grover of something boasting a name such as "The Truth", and you better expect me to defend him :)

Now, a Board name is ONE thing, and "The Truth" would be completely acceptable, but when you also sign your post as "The Truth", that is an attempt to remain anonymous. You don't want us to know what class and server you play on? Fine, but don't be surprised when I doubt your truths. Moreover, it seems quite arrogant to me to sign your post "The Truth" with all 6 of your posts being argumentative at best, and downright insulting at worst. Are you insinuating that what you say is the simple truth because that is certainly how it comes across.

I wasn't flaming you, but I would have been inclined to if I didn't respect the rules of the board (or if I wasn't so afraid of the Mods!).

Anyways, have a nice day.

TeriMoon

06-24-2003, 12:50 PM

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Superballs[/quote]

Love those things! But, you have to be careful the dog doesn't choke on them...